- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2175 WP No. 100776 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100776 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: HANAMAPPA S/O BHEEMAPPA YATINALLI AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. BALEHOSUR, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG-582101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SADIQ N GOODWALA ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALLARADDI S/O HANAMAPPA YATINALLI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE 2. BASAVARADDI S/O HANAMAPPA YATINALLI AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE 3. HEMAREDDI S/O HANAMAPPA YATINALLI AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE 4. MALLAVVA W/O HANAMAPPA YATINALLI AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2175 WP No. 100776 of 2025 5. BASAVANNEVVA W/O SHIVAPPA MALI AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD 6. SUSHILAVVA W/O HANAMANTAPA MUNDAVAD AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD 7. SHANTAVVA W/O SURESHGOUDA MALIPATIL AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. ALAVANDI, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL 8. GOVINDAPPA S/O HALAPPA YATINALLI AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE 9. BASAVARADDI S/O HALAPPA YATINALLI AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE 10. SUBHASH S/O HALAPPA YATINALLI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE 11. FAKKIRESH S/O HALAPPA YATINALLI AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE 12. SHANTAVVA W/O PARAMESHWARAPPA ATTIGERI AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE RESPONDENTS 1-6 AND 8-12 ARE R/O. BALEHOSUR, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG-582101. 13. MAHADEVAKKA W/O VENKARADDI NAGARADDER - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2175 WP No. 100776 of 2025 AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. UPPIN BETAGERI, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231. 14. RATNAVVA W/O VENKARADDI BHAVI AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. UPPIN BETAGERI, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231. 15. MALAXAVVA W/O NARANEPPA BHAVI AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. UPPIN BETAGERI, TQ AND DIST KOPPAL-583231. 16. VANAJAXAVVA W/O MANJAPPA ANNEPPANAVAR AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. SIGANAHALLI, TQ. CHIKKABALLAPUR BENGALURU-562101. 17. FAKKIRAVVA W/O ISHAPPA AMARASHETTI AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. LAXMESHWAR, TQ. SHIRAHATTI DIST. GADAG-582101. 18. BHARMAPPA S/O BHEEMAPPA YATINALLI AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. BALEHOSUR, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG-582101. 19. GURUNATHAPPA S/O BHEEMAPPA YATINALLI AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. BALEHOSUR, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG-582101. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2175 WP No. 100776 of 2025 20. BASAVVA W/O HANUMANTAPPA HASARADDI AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. HALIYAL, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-582129. 21. BASAVANNEVVA W/O REVANAPPA KUDAPALI AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. JIGALI, TQ. HARIHAR DIST. DAVANAGERE-577001. 22. SAVANTRAVVA S/O FAKKIRADDI MUGADURU AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. KYALKUNDA, TQ. SHIGGAON DIST. HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS D/W V/O DATED 04.02.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.12.2024 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, LAXMESHWAR IN EX.NO.70/2022 ON I.A.NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC. ***** THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2175 WP No. 100776 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Notice to the respondents are dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. A writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 passed by Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwar in Ex.No.70/2022 on I.A.No.3 vide Annexure-K. ii. Issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. What is under challenge in this proceeding is the order dated 4.12.2024 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwar in Execution No.70 of 2022 on an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which came to be numbered as IA No.3. The said application had been filed for the purpose of availing police protection to the bailiff - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2175 WP No. 100776 of 2025 since there was obstruction by JDR 11 to the execution of the decree. 4. The trial Court considering the fact that in pursuance of F.D.P. No.7 of 2017 final decree was drawn up on 25.01.2022 and the Commissioner report was also accepted the ADLR was directed to assist the bailiff for delivery of possession by execution of the warrant. When JDR 11 obstructed the bailiff is securing delivery of possession, the aforesaid IA No.3 had been filed. 5. The execution Court rejected the contention of the JDR 11 that there is a house constructed in the suit property and that the Commissioner has intentionally not shown the said house in the report submitted by him and directed the jurisdictional police to render necessary police protection to the bailiff and ADLR to comply with the order passed on IA No.1 dated 26.7.2023 therein. It is challenging the same, that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2175 WP No. 100776 of 2025 the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 6. Sri. Sadiq No.Goodwala., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that; 6.1. The petitioner is not in any manner coming in the way of the implementation of the final decree in F.D.P. No.7 of 2017, except to contend that there is a house constructed by JDR 11 on two guntas of the land which falls to the share of the decree holder, which has not been mentioned in the Commissioner's report. 6.2. His further submission is that the petitioner has challenged the final decree in RA No.17 of 2023. On enquiry as to whether any order of stay has been passed in the said Regular Appeal, he submits that the regular appeal was filed belatedly and notice on condonation of delay of application has been issued and there is no order of stay which has been passed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2175 WP No. 100776 of 2025 7. If that be so, I am of the considered opinion that the final decree having attained finality and there being no obstruction for the execution of the final decree, it is only JDR 11 who has obstructed the bailiff and the ADLR in executing the warrant which had been issued to them and in that background that the Execution Court has directed the jurisdiction police to render necessary police protection. 8. The submission of JDR 11 has earlier been rejected by the Execution Court that there is a construction which has been put up and there being no contra order passed thereto, I am of the considered opinion that the same cannot again be reconsidered when an application for grant of police protection is made. 9. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Execution Court, if at all the petitioner were to succeed in the Regular Appeal filed, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation in relation - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2175 WP No. 100776 of 2025 thereto. With the above observation, the petition not making out any valid grounds, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR/List No.: 4 Sl No.: 2